I personally believe that selling substances that can cause harm to a person is morally permissible as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks.

Suppose the person is fourteen years old, though. Does your mind change?

Suppose the person is fourteen years old, though. Does your mind change?

Presumably it is argued that they are not aware of the potential risks. Although I think you would have to modify it for a more specific definition of "awareness". A 14 year old can be taught the facts, but the "risk taking" part of the brain is still developing in teenagers (supposedly), so one would argue that they aren't well equipped to deal with risk.

Sure it changes my mind. There's laws against selling certain things to certain people for certain reasons.

We're speaking of ethics here, not law, aren't we? Regardless, it appears what you said in your OP is not what you personally believe. You lied to us!

Whether or not any collection of people decide to allow or prohibit such a thing should depend on the extent such would damage or enhance the individual the larger community - it's all up to them and what they collectively decide.

... and that would come down to a question of how much and what kind of damage do these pose. The more destructive to the community, the greater one should be prohibitive.

... or so I think

Exactly my point - there are other factors at play here. Maturity, age, and influence are all factors we must consider, to name a few. We cannot simply leave it at "as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks", can we?

We must delve into what "as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks" really means, and more, acknowledge it is not the only important factor when determining whether someone should be held morally accountable for the sale of drugs. Even an adult, intelligible enough to be aware of the potential risks of a drug, could be considered under the influence when purchasing drugs (or anything). And, I think, as an example, it would be wrong for a person to sell drugs to such a person.

I personally believe that selling substances that can cause harm to a person is morally permissible as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks. Do you think that it's ethical to sell drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol even though it could harm a person's physiological and psychological health?

Can the sale of these substances be justified or condemned by any of the three most common ethical systems, such as deontology, utilitarianism or virtue theory?

How is it that consumption lacks moral status?

Consumption is an activity. Ethical theories exist in order to tell us how and how not to act.

As consumption is an activity, ethical theories should have something to say about consumption.

I really don't think anyone believes that consumption is amoral. What about consuming veal? What about gluttony? What about consuming human flesh?

Is it morally permissible to aid a person in suicide, as long as the potential suicide victim is aware of the consequences of his actions?

It's not the same situation at all. Nearly every edible product has the potential to cause harm or even kill a person. Should I not sell candy because it can cause diabetes? Should I not sell water because the person could potentially become water intoxicated?

Nearly every edible product has the potential to cause harm or even kill a person.

Yum Yum..Has the sale of drugs got anything to do with morals or the expedient necessity to control the consumption of it.

However, I have no problems with the idea that adults should be allowed to buy and use substances that can cause harm to them, provided that there are appropriate warning labels on them. If we followed this idea to its logical implications, illegal drugs would be made legal for adults. As things are, the laws are insane, as tobacco products are associated with more deaths than all illegal drugs combined (in the U.S.), which shows that the dangerousness of something does not determine whether something is legal or not.





.

But the nature of these products are not the same as say heroin which is far more addictive due to it's physical dependencies after the first try, candy a person can give up tomorrow where as cigarettes it is not so easy, why would a person drink himself to death, cigerettes are far more addictive, thus far more dangerous leading to death, there is a difference between the two therefore responsibilty should be exercised. I personally believe cigarettes shoud be bannned, what purpose do they serve? Selling water to quench ones thirst carries little to no risk.

I made those comparisons because Didymos Thomas wanted to get too broad and make a comparison between selling drugs (mainly speaking of alcohol and tobacco) and assisting someone to commit suicide.

I personally believe cigarettes shoud be bannned, what purpose do they serve? .